Would you support a more progressive tax system?

[ProSense]

Poll question: Would you support a more progressive tax system?

Could you support either of these proposals?

Proposal A

50,000 to $90,000 (cut to 10 percent)
$90,000 to $150,000 (cut to 20 percent)
$150,000 to $250,000 (cut to 30 percent)
$250,000 to $500,000 (increase to 40 percent)
$500,000 to $5 million (increase to 50 percent)
$5 million plus (increase to 60 percent)
Tax capital gains the same as ordinary income

Source

Proposal B (variation)

50,000 to $90,000 (cut to 10 percent)
$90,000 to $150,000 (cut to 20 percent)
$150,000 to $250,000 (cut to 30 percent)
$250,000 to $500,000 (no change)
$500,000 to $1 million (increase to 45 percent)
$1 million to $5 million (increase to 50 percent)
$5 million plus (increase to 60 percent)
Tax capital gains the same as ordinary income

[gateley]

1. Neither. As much as I hate what some of these fuckwads take in, I don't think

anybody should be paying 60% in taxes. I'm not sure what I'd max at, but that just seems too high.

How did the country function before we had federal income tax?

[ProSense]

2. Most people in that

category aren't paying 20 percent after all the tax breaks they get.

They either get a tax increase or give up the tax breaks.

[pnwmom]

4. If that's true, how would we ever raise enough revenue with those rates? n/t

[quaker bill]

73. we don't

thus the deficit

[gateley]

9. Yeah, well in my fantasy scenario they wouldn't get those breaks, just pay the tax. nt

[Hawkowl]

11. Tariffs

Tariffs funded the entire US government until the income tax amendment was passed. Protected jobs and produced income. And I strenuously disagree that 60% is "too high". Once someone starts making over say $5 million a year, I'd tax it at 100%. Nothing good comes of accumulation for the sake of accumulation. Behind every great fortune is a great crime.

[vaberella]

35. self-delete. n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

15. Just so we are clear, those rates are not rates for 'fuckwads' or

for people, they are rates for income levels. That means that we all pay the same on each rising level. Everyone, fuckwads included, get a cut on the amount under 250K and an increase on amounts over that. The 60% is not from dime one, it kicks in at 5 million. 60% of the 6th and following millions in a given year.
We used to have a 'top tax rate' of 90%. That never meant that people of high income paid 90% of their yearly total, it meant that they paid 90% on the top end of their yearly income.
Just so people are clear about that.

[verges]

26. Thank-you for mentioning that.

It's a point that way too often gets forgotten. And I don't think most people understand that.

[joeglow3]

36. 90% is not accurate

Nobody paid that because of all the deductions allowed back then. In fact, this is the era we saw the AMT enacted because so many high income people were paying NOTHING in taxes. Thus, you are doing an apples to apples comparison if you keep the deductions where they are today and compare just tax rates. After all, taxes owed are a function of TWO numbers - taxable income and tax rates.

[ProSense]

40. "90% is not accurate. Nobody paid that because of all the deductions allowed back then. "

If the tax rates for upper income brackets don't matter, why are so many people opposed to raising them?

Are you saying that when people paid 90 percent on income over a certain amount it was no different from paying 35 percent on income over a certain amount?

[joeglow3]

67. I am saying you ignore on side of the equation

Lets say someone makes 1M. Under scenario #1 they have $600,000 in "legitimate" deductions, resulting an AGI of $400,000 and pay 80% in taxes:

400,000 x 80% = 320,000 in taxes.

Under scenario number 2, they have 100,000 in deductions and pay 35%:

900,000 x 35% = 315,000 in taxes.

As a percentage of total income, they are paying about 32% in both scenarios. This is what happened with the tax act of 1986. MANY MANY deductions were eliminated and tax rates were lowered. If you raised taxes to 80% today and left deductions where they are at, you are in a MUCH different place:

900,000 x 80% = $720,000 in taxes.

Now, I am not commenting on this being a good idea or not. I am simply saying that when someone makes the statement "taxes were once 90%. We just want it to be 80%, which is not as bad" they are either lying or ignorant. It is NOT an accurate comparison.

And, for full disclosure purposes, I am a Tax CPA.

[ProSense]

70. No, there is nothing being ignored.

Your equation:

Lets say someone makes 1M. Under scenario #1 they have $600,000 in "legitimate" deductions, resulting an AGI of $400,000 and pay 80% in taxes:

400,000 x 80% = 320,000 in taxes.

Under scenario number 2, they have 100,000 in deductions and pay 35%:

900,000 x 35% = 315,000 in taxes.

As a percentage of total income, they are paying about 32% in both scenarios. This is what happened with the tax act of 1986. MANY MANY deductions were eliminated and tax rates were lowered. If you raised taxes to 80% today and left deductions where they are at, you are in a MUCH different place:

900,000 x 80% = $720,000 in taxes.

You're explaining the impact of deductions, and "legitimate" deductions vary.

The whole point is that loopholes impact the effective rates.

Under scenario 2, if they have 200,000 in deductions and pay 35%:

800,000 x 35% = 280,000 in taxes.

It matters.

On edit: The tax rates are also progressive, a person earning $1 million would only be paying the top rate on the amount over the threshold of whatever bracket they end up in after deductions.

[LiberalFighter]

17. Absolutely no one would be paying 60% of their income in taxes under either suggestion.

Progressive tax rates have brackets where the income that falls within each bracket is taxed at a different rate. In example A, someone with income that can be taxed at 60% would have income that is taxed at 6 different rates. Actually 7, because everyone has income that is not taxed.

[Hansel]

23. +1

And there is a case that can be made that any income over $5 million net is basically earned on the backs of all other tax payers so if they have to pay that much, so be it.

We are all paying for infrastructure; courts that protect their patents, copy rights, and earnings; by settling for disproportionately low earnings so they can make this kind of money; special favors in tax codes from the government they lobby that we have to make up for; free education of their employees and even co-workers through public schools that allows them to reap high incomes; military and law enforcement that protects their ability to make that much money, etc.

These people are getting disproportionate rewards from the pooled resources of the American people, so when they hit those kinds income levels they should be paying a disproportionate amount of the cost of these things as well. Seems like they want everything for next to nothing. They have an entitlement mentality that doesn't quit.

[ProSense]

24. Great point.

That means someone with an income of $600,000 would only be taxed 50 percent on $100,000, the amount above $499,999.

Similarly, a person who makes $6 million would only be taxed 60 percent on $1 million, the amount about $4,999,999.

This really illustrates how beneficial the loopholes are considering that people at these income levels are paying a lower rate than those who earn under $250,000.

[golfguru]

19. Nobody paid those high rates, loop holes galore before Reagan

[ProSense]

25. Even with the loopholes, the tax rates were much higher

<...>




Personal Exemptions and Individual Income Tax Rates, 1913-2002 (PDF)

[golfguru]

28. No question, and no manufacturing competition from 1.3 Billion Chinese

and 1 Billion Indians who can now manufacture anything we can.

[ProSense]

29. That still doesn't explain why

U.S. companies should benefit from loopholes that allow some to pay an effective tax rate of as little as 4.5 percent. China and India have higher rates.

<...>

We found that for 2010, the U.S ranked second to Japan by a fraction of a percentage point -- 39.54 percent for Japan to 39.21 percent for the U.S. But that figure is already outdated: Japan has moved to cut its rate for 2011 by 5 percentage points, leaving the U.S. with the highest corporate tax rate among OECD nations.

Still, the issue is complicated, so let’s delve a bit deeper.

The OECD rate is the "statutory" rate -- that is, the top corporate tax rate on the books. But as Obama indicated, many companies pay considerably less than that, due to deductions and other exclusions. Adjusting for these factors produces a statistic called the "effective tax rate."

The World Bank has assembled data from 183 nations and made a series of statistical adjustments to produce a full international comparison of effective tax rates. By this measurement, the U.S. rate is considerably lower than the published rate -- 27.6 percent. But in a comparative sense, that's still pretty high: Among larger international economies, only Japan, New Zealand and Thailand imposed a higher effective rate, according to the World Bank study. And Japan's number should fall by the time next year's study comes out.

The World Bank also produces another -- and broader -- statistic. This measure factors in not only the corporate profit tax but also a range of other taxes paid by businesses, including the cost of employee taxes borne by the employer. When the World Bank ranked countries from the lowest level of taxes to the highest, the U.S. ranked 124th out of 183 -- meaning corporate taxes were relatively high. A number of other large and/or democratic countries were higher, including Austria, Belgium, Brazil, China, France, Hungary, India, Italy, Spain and Sweden.

link

[golfguru]

30. All depends on how that 4.5% is calculated

Is it 4.5% of gross profits or gross sales or net profits.
Net profit has a lot of deductions such as depreciation or allowance
for depletion of oil & gas wells etc.

Other reasons are when outfit A buys another outfit B and if B has loss
carryovers, then outfit A can offset those against its profits and thus
has it's tax reduced.

Which is why the better method is a national sales tax. It is simple, and
straight forward and no loop holes. Eliminate the income tax and replace it
with sales tax. Then even the drug pushers will pay more tax every time they
buy something. Another benefit is that it will reward the efficient outfits and
not play nanny to the inefficient ones.

[ProSense]

31. No it doesn't depend.

The income tax rates in the chart are not based on varying calculations.

"Eliminate the income tax and replace it
with sales tax."

Consumption taxes are ridiculously regressive.

[golfguru]

32. How do you know how they are calculated?

Just saying so does not mean you are right.
Are you a qualified accountant?
Have you ever run a business in your entire life?

[ProSense]

38. The numbers aren't individual tax filings

How an individual business calculates its return is irrelevant. That's like trying to claim that an average income needs to take into consideration what individuals claim as income. It's irrelevant.

[joeglow3]

37. Sure it does

As a CPA who does income taxes for a Fortune 500, I can assure you it is not that easy. Honestly, I have always been interested by those numbers, but cannot find how they calculate them. For instance:

1. Are they looking at domestic only or global?
2. Are they looking at just current tax expense, or deferred tax expense as well (accountants understand what the difference is)?
3. What if the company has losses? Do they look the recording of NOL carryforwards? How do they handle valuation allowances? Do they consider when a company releases a huge valuation allowance?

[ProSense]

39. "As a CPA who does income taxes for a Fortune 500, I can assure you it is not that easy. "

What does being a CPA have to do with a statistic about an overall industry?

The Decline of Corporate Income Tax Revenues

<...>

• Treasury Department figures show that actual corporate income tax revenues fell to $132 billion in 2003, down 36 percent from $207 billion in 2000.
  
  
• As a result of these low levels, corporate revenues in 2003 represented only 1.2 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (the basic measure of the size of the economy), the lowest level since 1983, the year in which corporate receipts plummeted to levels last seen in the 1930s.
  
  
• Corporate revenues represented only 7.4 percent of all federal tax receipts in 2003. With the exception of 1983, this represents the lowest level on record (these data go back to 1934).

<...>

[ProSense]

42. Chart

Corporate Taxes as Percentage of GDP

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

50. You're making no sense and now resorting to condescension? n/t

[joeglow3]

69. That also happens to follow the trend towards globilization

I don't know if that contributes or not, but I need more evidence before I form a solid opinion I am willing to fight for or against.

[joeglow3]

68. Again, that does not tell the whole picture

It appears they are just looking at current tax expense and are ignoring deferred tax expense. What is causing this drop? Is it permanent or temporary adjustments? Could it be that more businesses are failing? I don't know, but am sure they play a factor.

[Mass]

44. national sales tax is extremely unfair. The poor and middle class pay way to much, even with

exemptions that are difficult to apply.

[golfguru]

45. The poor should get a tax refund based on income to compensate

for the tax. For example if the net income (after taxes) is $25,000,
And national sales tax is 18%, they should receive 9% tax credit = $2250.

The drug dealers do not declare any income, so they get no tax credit!

[Mass]

46. Still very unfair. The very rich are helped by that, while the middle class is killed.

Not something I would like to see implemented. This is a very regressive system.

[golfguru]

48. How is it unfair if sales tax you paid is pretty much returned to you

in the form of a US Treasury check when your income is low?

[Mass]

51. Because the rich consume a much lower percent of their income than the poor or the middle class.

With a federal sales tax, they end up paying a lot less.

[golfguru]

57. You may be missing my entire point

The poor will pay NO sales tax via a refund from Treasury.

Also, a lot of basic expenses do not involve sales tax...such as
Rent/mortgage, Food, Doctor visits, Meds etc. Those together form a major
portion of a poor family's expenses.

Most rich people OTOH actually buy expensive items such as expensive cars,
yachts, airline tickets, expensive clothes & watches, expensive booze,
expensive vacations, and expensive gadgets, all subject to sales tax.

[Mass]

60. I am not missing anything and have a pretty good idea how it works in other countries.

The point is that a progressive system tax people ON THEIR INCOME. The more you earn, the more you pay. It is what is fair. The rest is just a way to leave rich people off the hook. They generally save a lot more of their revenue than the middle class, so they are proportionally A LOT LESS taxed. The key word is proportionally.

[quaker bill]

74. how often?

[ProSense]

49. That makes no sense.

How does this help:

... For example if the net income (after taxes) is $25,000,
And national sales tax is 18%, they should receive 9% tax credit = $2250.

The drug dealers do not declare any income, so they get no tax credit!

Who is "the poor"? What about the rest of the 99 percent of Americans who don't earn more than $250,000.

Consumption tax is ridiculous. Also, what is this focus on drug dealers?

[golfguru]

58. Europe has high consumption tax

and Europeans must be happy with it because they have not
abolished it. We should emulate Europe, they seem to be happier than
Americans.

[ProSense]

59. "We should emulate Europe, they seem to be happier than" Are you

suggesting that the U.S. emulate Europe by raising our effective corporate taxe rate, implementing government-run health care and instituting other excellent benefits and retirement systems? How about mandated vacations and cutting the number of hours worked?

Also, their consumption tax isn't in lieu of an income tax, and many of their total income tax rates are higher than the top U.S. rate

[golfguru]

62. I have read many places only Japan has a higher tax rate than US

on corporations. Just close the loop holes here and everything will be
hunky Dorey.

[dbmk]

41. Except noone would ever reach 60%

If you pay 60% of everything above 5 mil and less than 60% of those 5 mil - you have to make quite a bit of money above 5 mil to get so close it makes no difference.

Threw proposal A into a spreadsheet. Heres a few %ages:

Income - Taxes - %

100,000 - 6,000 - 6.00
200,000 - 31,000 - 15.50
500,000 - 146,000 - 29.20
1,000,000 - 396,000 - 39.60
5,000,000 - 2,396,000 - 47.92
10,000,000 - 5,396,000 - 53.96

[Mass]

43. Why? If people make $6 millions and more, they certainly benefit of the infrastructure of the

country a lot. Why should they not pay theire share.

Even if somebody who earned $5 millions was taxed at 60 % (which is not what is proposed here, but simplifies my math), he would still have $3 millions left after taxes. The person who earns $100,000 would have $ 90, 000 left. The residual is still very high. Each should contribute to the country according to their means.

The only real question is whether or not it would be effective.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

77. Remember, they're only paying 60% on income over $5M.

They get their first $90K taxed at 10% just like everyone else.

[pnwmom]

3. Would either of these proposals be revenue neutral?

There are a lot more people making under 250K than over it.

[ProSense]

5. The top 1 percent

has 23 percent of the total income and 42 percent of the wealth.

They also got a break on the estate tax in the last package.

Both the individual and corporate tax codes need to be fixed, either by increasing taxes or eliminating loopholes to ensure that the rich and corporations aren't paying less than those earning under $250,000.

[pnwmom]

7. I agree with raising rates on the higher earners. But I'm still wondering

about revenue neutrality.

[ProSense]

8. The purpose seems to be

to increase the revenue stream so at the very least, that would be the goal.

[Telly Savalas]

13. Armchair budget makers floating random numbers

don't really have access to the sort of analytic tools and specific data required to determine budget neutrality. It makes looking at specific numbers kind of dumb. But it can still be worthwhile to speculate about the levels of taxation one would consider fair.


Moreover, revenue neutrality shouldn't be the goal. We're running very large deficits so the long term goal of an overhaul of the tax system should be to boost revenue not keep it at its current level.

[craigmatic]

6. Tax rates should be higher. Those were the rates when the US was still producing and leading the

rest of the post war world.

[Sherman A1]

12. Agreed

The top rates should be in the 70 to 90% rate. With Cap Gains taxed at your regular income rate. Inheritance should also be taxed at the regular income rates (starting at say $3 Million or so).

The retirement age should be lowered to 55 early and 60 full with a requirement for some type of civic service hours for those able up to age 65.

And of course Medicare for All.

[Recovered Repug]

55. It was a lot easier leading in production

when so many other countries were in rubble.

[craigmatic]

61. It also didn't hurt that we still had a big manufacturing base either.

[MrModerate]

10. Couldn't possible have an opinion without some analysis of the effects. I'll pass. n/t

[pampango]

14. Definitely needs to be much more progressive than it is now.

We can argue over the details, but we'll never improve our level of income inequality unless we improve the progressivity of the tax system.

[dugog55]

16. Tax Rates

Why do regular working people get a tax book that looks like a pamphlet and the rich people get one that looks the the New York White Pages? They get too many deductions. Warren Buffet himself said it's ridiculous that he pays a LOWER percentage in taxes than his secretary. Regardless of what the tax codes currently say, the upper 1% pay less than 20% in taxes, nowhere near the 35-39% that is popularly used in the media.

How about a flat tax? The first $20,000 per individual/$40,000 per family is the standard deduction. After that, you pay 25% in taxes. Period. No other deductions, credits, or write-offs of any kind. A family that makes $100,000 would then pay 25% of $60,000 which would be $15,000, or 15% of their total earnings. Pretty close to what it is now. Everyone making less would pay less than they are now. And the rich would not be able to get away with all their deductions that are NOT available to the working family. It would ease the tax burden on low-income families, and really assist those on retirement incomes.

Apply the same formula to businesses and corporations (why not?, our SCOTUS gave them personhood). Tax everything they consider profits. GE made a profit of $10 billion and paid no taxes, and actually got a $1 billion tax credit (from "Capitalism a Love Story). That is bullshit. Hell, Exxon-Mobil made profits of $425 billion (2008 I believe) and paid no taxes. If the company is listed on any US Stock Exchange, they should pay their taxes.

Those Republican bastards (and most spineless Dems) are trying to cut every social service for real Americans, and look the other way when the "Rich", banksters and corporations are not paying enough or nothing towards our budget. Then, they go out of their way to help them out of financial jams they created.

[LiberalFighter]

18. I agree that the more wealthy should pay more.

But I don't think it needs to go that high. In addition, I think there should be additional brackets on the top end.

[golfguru]

20. I would learn from history

Perform a comprehensive study of Actual Tax Rates in various countries
and determine which has the lowest unemployment and best growth in GDP.
The ultimate goal is to create prosperity for the most people.

Learn from actual history, because if you ignore history you are doomed
to repeat the bad results.

[vaberella]

33. This makes no sense.

There is no nation with directly the same amount of workers (be it potential or skilled) that can compare properly. That is to say... you can't in any way make a working comparison. Trade is involved, skilled workers, skilled in what fields, innovation, family size, and so on and so forth. Places like England (arbitrarly chosen) can have the lowest unemployment, but then you have tot take into account policies put in place and if these policies can be inacted in the United States effectively---and can this be sold to the American people in order to inact it--- shit, can it be sold to congress in order to inact it. Ultimately what you're sugesting is time consuming, a logistical nightmare, and likely to be ineffective due to so much red tape and differing opinion and there is no way to prove that we won't have the same results--- since our problem essentially lies in the abuses of policies versus something really ineffective with the system. We curb the abuses and we're good.

[old mark]

21. Neither, but it should be really progressive- and it should have very abreviated

loopholes and credits and excdeptions- I'd rather see the tax code streamlined to get rid of most exceptions and credits than to add tax burdens over 50% to anyone...Our present system allows people investing in "long term capital gains" such as real estate to pay drastically low taxes on huge incomes, and this should not continue.

mark

[ProSense]

22. And this is why it's hard to do

Getting people to agree on either raising the rates on higher incomes or getting rid of loopholes.

They should aim to do both: raise the rates and get rid of most of the loopholes.

Something needs to be done.

[marlakay]

27. But I still would not have capital gains

on people inheriting the family house. Most people would lose homes in the family for years if they had to pay taxes on it. Same goes for selling a home for more money, no tax as long as you invest the money in another house or have the one time over 55 to save for the future.....god knows you need that with our pension system!

[vaberella]

34. Neither. I say increase taxes on everyone, just more as you go up the line. n/t

[Blasphemer]

52. I'm for any progressive tax system that increases our tax revenue-percentage of GDP ratio

Ours is around 28% while it's 39% for the UK and 43-49% for Scandinavian countries. Our attitude toward taxation needs to change along with a collective understanding of just how poorly wealth is distributed.

[ProSense]

53. "Ours is around 28% while it's 39% for the UK and 43-49% for Scandinavian countries. "

It would be great if the top 1 percent were paying around 28 percent, but they're not.

In terms of health care and retirement, those countries do a lot more for their citizens than the U.S.

The U.S. first needs to get the rich to pay their fair share.

Taxes can increase to pay for health and retirement systems similar to those of Scandinavian countries.

[whosinpower]

54. Proposal C - this variation

50 000 - 90 000 (cut 30 percent)
90 000 - 150 000 (cut 20 percent)
150 000 - 250 000 (cut 10 percent)
250 000 - 500 000 increase to 40 percent
500 000 - 1 million increase to 45 percent
1 million - 5 million increase to 65 percent
over 5 million increase to 75 percent
tax capital gains the same as ordinary income

[ProSense]

71. What do those rate cuts mean? n/t

[baldguy]

56. No body earning less than $50k/yr should pay federal income tax.

No body earning more than $1mil/yr should be able to avoid it.

[yurbud]

63. why have steps instead of a sloped line?

doesn't that encourage people who make just over the cut off for the lower step more likely to cheat? And wouldn't that ''punish'' people with a slightly higher gross by making their net less than someone with a slightly lower gross?

[dbmk]

64. The steps are there for ease of understanding, more or less.

And as the tax percentages are only for the part of your income _in_ those brackets, higher gross will always mean higher net. All other things being equal.
Common misconception - and I suspect the root cause for a lot of what I will call inflated statements about taxes.

If its 10% under 100k and 20% over 100k, then someone who makes 99k will pay 9.9k in taxes and have a net of 89.1k. Someone who makes 101k will pay 10% of the 100k and 20% of the 1k above it = 10k+0.2k = 10.2k - leading to a net of 90.8k.

A sloped line, on its face, would seem the right thing to do - but has two issues that makes it a problem to implement:

1) Your tax percentage would be a formula. Try selling that to the public. :)
(With brackets it still is a formula, and a more complicated on at that, ofc. But the clearly defined limits on the brackets puts it in terms people (think they) can understand.)

2) Most importantly: A simple sloped line would have to cross 100% at some income point. Now try selling THAT to the public. :)

[yurbud]

65. OK, a slope with a plateau. If you do your own taxes, you look it up in a table anyway

so whether it's a step or a slope doesn't change any thing unless you want to double check the numbers.

[dbmk]

66. Except when having to put it into words to Mr and Mrs US. n/t

[yellowcanine]

72. I think both the personal exemption and the standared deduction should raised high enough

so that all deductions could be eliminated without increasing the taxes of most people making less than 100,000 and also eliminate income taxes entirely on anyone making less than 50,000. Than raise the tax rates high enough for everyone making more than 100,000 to balance the budget within 10 years. It could probably be a flat tax at that point. The actual numbers may need to be worked with a little but you get the idea.

[quaker bill]

75. The problem is that tax policy alone

will not get us where we need to be. Reducing the percentage of tax taken on paltry wages leaves paltry wages in place. People truly earning paltry wages under the current system generally don't pay all that much in taxes.

A refundable credit, like EIC is laudable in that it attempts to address inequity, but it is just pushing costs around artifically, or alternately as in the current scenario, printing money and handing it to the poor to patch a whole in social policy. We do this in a great many ways beyond EIC.

Affordable housing block grants are another example. It is good to build affordable housing. However the overall policy can be summarized that to support artificially low wages, we collect taxes and print money to subsidize low cost housing, food stamps, welfare, indigent healthcare, refundable tax credits, and other all too modest means to attempt to redistribute wealth through government policy. There is no perfect way to do this, so some of the needy get missed entirely, and others do far better.

The proper way to do this is to have wealth distributed fairly without substantial government interventions. That said, there will always be a need for some government intervention. A real living wage is needed. Instead of subsidizing businesses that pay substandard wages by taxing others to provide their employees with funds for food and housing, you require them to pay enough so that the people who work for them can live, and stop taxing others and printing money to fill the holes.

[GTurck]

76. WTH..

We don't make any of those amounts so they sound good to us although our kids might have different ideas. Is this without any deductions? We may need some to make the idea palatable but keep it progressive in the sense of encouraging behaviors we want from each group.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

78. I would like a flat tax with NO loopholes or tax shelters.

If there were absolutely no loopholes, tax breaks, or tax shelters for any people OR corporations/businesses... the effective flat tax rate would be very low. Probably alot lower that most lower class and middle class peons pay anyways. And then you go ahead and just excuse those below the poverty-line altogether.

Large corporations make billions avoiding taxes through loopholes and shelters and laws made just for them. Warren Buffet, at one point, claimed his secretary paid more taxes than he did!IMO, a flat tax seems more fair in that everyne pays an equal percentage and everyone (who isn't currently using mega tax breaks and loopholes) would likely end up paying less.